Click-Thru Licensing on Open Source Software?

Russ Nelson writes "At the July OSI board meeting last week, we approved the Academic Free License (think MIT/BSD/X11/Apache with a patent grant) and we sent four licenses back for reconsideration. Here's the hitch: we were asked to approve a license which includes a requirement for click-wrap. Read more to see why we're asking you about it. The submittor had already been asked if that requirement was a necessity. She said yes, because of various legal precedents. We consulted a few people and yes, it looks like a license without click-wrap is weaker at protecting your rights. So, folks, the lawyers are coming. The time is coming when you won't be able to distribute software unless you have presented the license to the user and their assent is necessary to access the software. Even free software. Our industry is maturing and we need to be more legally careful and rigorous. The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are allowable or not. We could go either way, but we want to hear from you first. Your opinions solicited, and engaged!" While I can understand some legal necessities are necessary in the software world, click-thru licenses have never, and will never, make sense to me. Maybe commercial software has soured me on the concept, but I dislike agreeing to something before I even get a chance to use it.

Comments

Where's the license?

[The Pim]

Is a crucial link missing, or are you asking us our opinion about a license we haven't seen? If there's some good reason you can't show us the license (I can't think of any), at least you could give us some specific details.

a license which includes a requirement for click-wrap

A requirement imposed on whom, to do what?

She said yes, because of various legal precedents. We consulted a few people and yes, it looks like a license without click-wrap is weaker at protecting your rights.

What precedents? Whom did you consult? Whose rights? What's the argument?

The time is coming when you won't be able to distribute software unless you have presented the license to the user and their assent is necessary to access the software. Even free software.

What kind of FUD is this? Are you telling us it's a forgone conclusion that you will accept this license? Are you telling us that the FSF (which defines "free software") will accept this license? Are they and other free software distributers going to change their licenses to require click-through?

Come on, Russ. Give us the facts, straight, so we have some basis for discussion.

It's time for OSI to return the OSD to SPI

[Bruce Perens]

I'm aghast that OSI would even consider click-wrap, and I entirely reject the unsubsantiated scare-mongering that goes along with its proposal.

The OSD was developed by the Debian group under the aegis of Software in the Public Interest. Nobody who is presently involved with OSI had any part of that.

OSI is probably the biggest mistake I've ever made, and yes it's my mistake. It's time to clean it up. The OSD should be returned to SPI, who can be trusted to administer it sanely.

Bruce